2007 PLP 1647 (CLC)
WAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1647 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1647 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1647 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1647 (CLC) (WAZIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN KHAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shahid Mehmood Khan Khilji for Petitioners.
- Mian Humayoon Aslam for Respondent No. 1.
- Ch. Muhammad Nawaz Bajwa, A.A.-G. for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 26
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20
Petitioner shad impugned appellate order whereby decree of the Trial Court had been set aside and the matter had been remanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh
Plea of petitioner was that dispute which had been raised by respondent had assailed consolidation proceedings which had attained finality through the hierarchy of Revenue Courts right upto Board of Revenue which went in favour of petitioner while dismissing a revision petition filed by respondent
Petitioner had argued that the very jurisdiction of the civil courts was barred by S.26 of West Pakistan Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960
Trial Court, after regular trial, found that it had no jurisdiction in the matter
Respondent was not in a position to controvert submissions, of petitioner
Question as to whether or not civil court had jurisdiction in the matter, had to be decided by Appellate Court; but no such decision had been made, despite issue in that respect was framed
Impugned remand order was set aside
Appeal filed by respondent would stand restored and would be decided afresh and parties would appear before Appellate Court.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.
Wazir Ahmad petitioner-defendant impugns the appellate order dated 24-1-2006, whereby the decree of the learned trial Court dated 11-6-2005 has been set aside and the matter has been remanded to the learned trial Court for decision afresh after impleading additional parties and after deciding an application for additional evidence, which was filed by Muhammad Hussain Khan respondent-plaintiff before the learned Appellate Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the dispute, which has been raised by the respondent-plaintiff assails consolidation proceedings, which have attained finality through the hierarchy of Revenue Court right upfo Board of Revenue, which held in favour of the petitioner while dismissing a revision petition filed by the respondent-plaintiff vide order, dated 4-5-2002. He argued that the very jurisdiction of the learned Civil Courts has been barred by section 26 of the Consolidation of Holdings Ordinance, 1960. After regular trial, the learned trial Court held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter.
3. In the above circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the remand order was also without jurisdiction. In any event, it was submitted, the learned Appellate Court had first to decide if it was vested with jurisdiction before passing the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff was not in a position to controvert the above submissions. It is clear that the question as to whether or not the Civil Courts have jurisdiction in the matter had to be decided by the learned Appellate Court. No such decision has, however, been made. Here it may be added that issue No.2 was specifically framed by the learned trial Court on the question of the Court's jurisdiction.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned remand order, dated 24-1-2006 'is set aside. The appeal filed by the respondent-plaintiff shall stand restored and shall be decided afresh. Since both sides are represented, they are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Court on 2-11-2006.
6. This appeal is allowed in the above terms. H.B.T./W-4/L Order accordingly.